Download From Meals to Wheels - Global Justice Ecology Project

tion, and thus resistance to GE agrofuel crops may be less intense, and 2) there is
very strong support for measures perceived to be countering global climate change.
They are banking on the notion that this may clear the path to testing and commercialization of GE agrofuel crops, enzymes and trees.
Conclusions
The wealthy countries of the north consume a vastly disproportionate share of the
world’s energy supplies and are most responsible for damage to the global climate.
Yet the developing countries in the south that will likely suffer more from the effects of climate change are being looked at to provide the “solutions”. The rapid
and heedless charge to develop markets for agrofuel feedstocks will result in further degradation of lands and water and loss of food sovereignty for people in the
south as their lands are put to the task of growing fuel for automobiles. Standards
and certification systems will not be able to secure sustainability in the agrofuel
sector, as they are unable to deal with the numerous indirect effects of rapidly
rising agricultural commodity prices caused by large-scale agrofuel production.
Instead, we must call upon wealthy nations to extensively reduce consumption of
energy through strict conservation measures, and to develop more benign energy
alternatives, such as solar, wind and geothermal. Biomass has always been an important source of energy for the world’s rural poor, especially for women, and it
will continue to have a place in the world’s energy future, but biomass and biofuels
are only viable on a small local scale, certainly not as a “replacement” for the current overconsumptive and wasteful fossil fuel regime.
For further information, visit the following:
World Rainforest Movement: http://www.wrm.org.uy/
Biofuelwatch: http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/
Massive diversion of U.S. grain to fuel cars is raising world food prices, by Lester
Brown, Earth Policy Institute: http://www.energybulletin.net/27762.html
Wetlands International: http://www.wetlands.org/
The Landless Workers Movement of Brazil (MST): www.mst.org.br/
Disaster In The Making: A Statement on Biofuels from the Global Forest Coalition
http://www.energybulletin.net/21845.html
Global Justice Ecology Project: http://www.globaljusticeecology.org/
Global Forest Coalition: http://www.globalforestcoalition.org/
From Meals to Wheels:
The Social & Ecological
Catastrophe of Biofuels
The only goal [of agrofuels] is to maintain current patterns of consumption in the First World and high rates of profit for multinational corporations.
—MST (the Brazilian Landless Workers’ Movement)
“The stage is now set for direct competition for grain between the 800
million people who own automobiles, and the world’s two billion
poorest people.”
-–Lester Brown
“Biofuel is worse for the planet than petroleum.”
—George Monbiot
“By offering financing to poor countries to produce ethanol from corn
or any other kind of food, no tree will be left to defend humanity from
climate change.”
—Fidel Castro
Produced by:
Global Forest Coalition
Global Justice Ecology Project
Introduction
With concerns over energy security and global warming mounting, governments
and industries have begun a headlong plunge towards the development of alternative energy sources including the use of plant biomass to make ethanol (from sugar
and starch) and biodiesel (from oils). Unfortunately, these biofuels (or agrofuels
as people have begun to call them, due to the corporate trend of taking over agricultural crops or lands to produce biofuels) are not the panacea that we might have
hoped for. In fact they are a recipe for global disaster.
Already, many countries have set goals for agrofuel production. Brazil is already
producing 40% of transportation fuels from sugar cane ethanol and soya biodiesel.
The European Union has mandated that 10% of transportation fuels be derived
from plant biomass by 2020. In the United States, George Bush stated a goal of
replacing 20% of U.S. transportation fuel with ethanol by 2017. China, Japan,
India and other countries are also working towards fueling their burgeoning
economies with agrofuels. The result of these mandated targets and goals is a very
rapid growth of markets for agrofuel feedstocks and technologies, massive investments and discussions about international trade agreements.
Because the most energy rich plant feedstocks grow in tropical and sub-tropical climates, the expansion of agrofuel production for export is impacting agriculture
and people in tropical and sub-tropical countries most heavily. Land formerly used
to produce food is increasingly being used to produce energy crops (sugar cane,
maize, soya, palm oil, jatropha and others) for export to wealthy northern countries.
As well, more native forests are being cleared, and Indigenous Peoples and small
farmers are being displaced from their traditional lands.
The rapid expansion of agrofuel production over the past few years is alarming. It
is being driven by the financial interests of large corporations and the geopolitical interests of large countries like the U.S. instead of a well thought out strategy for both
mitigating climate change and providing for the needs of people on both sides of
the equator. It is critical we recognize and put an end to this disaster in the making.
1) Agrofuels are not the answer to reducing carbon emissions.
When the entire lifecycle analysis is considered, agrofuels do not reduce carbon
emissions as much as hoped. Biodiesel (from oils) and ethanol (from sugars and
starch) both involve large energy inputs to produce. A true measure of the savings
achieved by switching from fossil fuels to biofuels must factor in all of these inputs.
For example, growing corn requires tilling, manufacture, transport and application
of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides, harvesting, transporting raw biomass to a refinery, processing--which often involves burning coal--and transporting again to
point of use. When all of these factors are included, the net savings is drastically reduced. The precise balance of these equations depends very much on what feedstock
is being used, how far it must be transported and the farming and refinery techniques.
Even when forested areas are not cleared directly for agrofuel agriculture, the effect
ucts are burned to fuel the refineries, making it a relatively efficient process. In the
U.S., corn is used as feedstock. Corn requires much more input to produce, and
thus far refineries are fueled with coal, making corn ethanol very inefficient. In
some cases, per unit of energy, agrofuels produce more carbon than fossil fuels.
The net carbon release from producing agrofuels is drastically and dangerously
increased when native forests are first cleared to make way for monoculture energy
crops, as this releases the stored carbon in the forest biomass and eliminates future
storage potential. For example, Southeast Asian peat forests are the earth’s largest
carbon storage ecosystems, and are being cleared and burned for oil palm planting.
As a result, 2 billion tons of CO2, equivalent to 8% of the global annual total of
fossil fuel emissions, are released from this area which accounts for only 0.2% of
the earth’s surface area. This has made Indonesia the third largest emitter of CO2
in the world, topped only by the U.S. and China, even though much of the population lives in poverty, and the palm oil is exported to Europe.
7) The rush to develop agrofuel technologies is hastening the introduction of
poorly considered GE (genetically engineered) and "synthetic biology" solutions.
Biotechnology and agribusiness industries are eager to capitalize on agrofuels. Already they are promoting and profiting tremendously from the use of herbicide
tolerant varieties of soya, corn and oilseed rape. Growers must purchase seed and
sprays from companies like Monsanto, Syngenta Bayer and DuPont. Varieties of
maize, cassava and other crops normally used for food are now being engineered
specifically for agrofuel production. Cross contamination with food crops is virtually inevitable given the record for GE contamination of food crops to date.
Technologies for deriving ethanol from cellulose rich feedstocks like wood (poplar,
willow, eucalyptus), switchgrass, or agricultural byproducts are being pursued aggressively, including GE and synthetic microbes. At first glance cellulosic technologies may seem appealing since potentially more energy can be extracted and
competition between food and fuel use is avoided. However, the technologies are
not yet available, are not likely to be available on the time scale needed to mitigate climate change and will lead to deforestation for monoculture plantations of GE trees.
Biotechnology industries are now working to develop GE trees that will grow more
rapidly, produce less lignin (the material that provides rigid structure), or grow in
poor conditions. Trees are long-lived and undergo various metabolic changes during their lifespan. Controlling the expression of genes is therefore more difficult
than in annual crops. Additionally, trees spread their pollen and seeds very widely,
often hundreds of miles. Cross contamination between GE trees and native forest
varieties is both inevitable and irreversible, and the consequences could be disastrous to forest ecosystems. Replacing native forests with monoculture plantations
of GE trees will result in biological deserts devoid of wildlife.
Industries that stand to profit are pushing genetically engineered agrofuel crops,
capitalizing on the fact that 1) agrofuel crops are not intended for human consump-
The World Bank estimates that demand for fresh water in India will exceed all
supply by 2050. Yet, in the state of Maharashtra, for example, farmers are scrambling to grow more cane to take advantage of the high prices even though existing
plantations already take two- thirds of the state’s water and have lowered water tables by up to 50 meters in places.
is often the same. When available prime agricultural lands are used to grow agrofuel crops, food production is pushed to the margins and into the forest frontier
where more land is cleared for food production. In the case of China, the reverse
is happening: agricultural lands for food production are being preserved and agrofuel monocultures are being targeted for forested lands.
In China, the world’s third largest producer of ethanol, over 400 cities are currently
facing water shortages, and large areas of land have already experienced desertification. Demand for water is growing along with the economy. Eliminating native
forests for agrofuel plantations will only increase competition for water, and ultimately impact food resources.
2) Growing biomass for fuel diverts agricultural lands from food production,
at a time when worldwide food reserves are already faltering and a large segment of the population is suffering from malnutrition.
In a 2007 Earth Policy Institute report on U.S. grain diversion for ethanol production, Lester Brown pointed out that in 2006, 16% of the U.S. corn harvest was converted to ethanol. U.S. corn is fundamental both directly as food for people and
indirectly as livestock feed worldwide. With a large portion of the harvest diverted
to ethanol production, the price of food corn has risen dramatically. Mexico, which
relies on U.S. corn imports, experienced a 60% increase in tortilla prices, causing
people to riot in the streets. More than 80 new ethanol refineries are under construction in the U.S. and in 2008, projections are that more than a third of U.S.
corn will be used for ethanol rather than food. The consequences, especially for
the world’s hungry, are staggering. This diversion of food for fuel comes at a time
when, according to United Nations, as many as 18,000 people (mostly children) die
every day from starvation. Eric Holthusen, a senior official with oil giant Shell,
agreed, describing the use of food crops to make fuel while people are starving as
“morally inappropriate.”
6) Deforestation, monoculture plantations and loss of biodiversity.
Agrofuel markets are driving the destruction of native forests to make way for
monoculture plantations of fuel crops like sugar cane, oil palm, soya, eucalypt and
jatropha. This eliminates the current and future carbon storage potential of native
forests and is further contributing to the loss of biodiversity. Monoculture plantations are biological deserts that do not provide habitat for native species.
In Brazil, 6 million hectares are currently under sugar cane production, and an additional 200 million hectares are considered “degraded” and therefore available
for expansion of cane production. Many of these lands classified as “degraded”
are in fact used for subsistence farming or cattle ranching, and the expansion of
sugar cane will lead to the expansion of cattle ranching into primary forests. One
hectare of land may save 13 tons of CO2 emissions if it is used to grow sugar cane
for ethanol, but that same hectare can absorb 20 tons of CO2 if it remains forested.
If sugarcane and soya plantations continue to spur deforestation, both in the Amazon and in Brazil’s Atlantic coastal forests, any climate advantage is more than
outweighed by the loss of the forest.
Already a large portion of the “Cerrado”, a unique, biodiverse ecosystem, has been
converted to cane plantations. Vast expanses of forest have been or are currently
being cleared for soya production, with the rate of deforestation directly linked to
the price of soya. Forested areas are often first burned, releasing all of the carbon
stored in the forest biomass. Brazil expects to triple ethanol production in the next
7 years. In Argentina, more than 500,000 hectares of forested land were converted
to soya agriculture between 1998 and 2002. In Nicaragua, an area of 200,000
hectares of rainforest within the Region Autonoma del Atlantico Norte (RAAN),
is slated for development of monoculture plantations of palm oil for biodiesel.
In Asia, particularly Indonesia and Malaysia, oil palm plantations, partly for agrofuel production, have expanded at alarming rates, devastating forests and peatlands
alike, pushing already threatened populations of orangutans, rhinoceros, tigers and
many other indigenous animals to the brink of extinction.
In Brazil, sugar cane is a fast growing, low labor feedstock, and the waste byprod-
Declining agricultural productivity is also likely in the future due to the increasing
severity of droughts resulting from global warming. South African countries like
Zambia and Malawi, for example, are producing biodiesel (from jatropha) for export, at the same time that they are unable to feed their populations and depend on
external food aid. Food aid, meanwhile, is becoming less available as competition
for grain for agrofuel production increases.
China recently scaled back grain ethanol production in recognition of the conflicting need to feed a large population. In that country, arable land shrunk by 8 million
hectares between 1999 and 2005 due to desertification. However, China’s alternative plan to fuel a very rapidly growing number of automobiles is to convert
13.3 million hectares of sensitive native forest land into monoculture plantations
of jatropha and oilpalm for biodiesel.
If the U.S. were to divert its’ entire annual corn and soya harvest into agrofuel production, the resulting agrofuel would replace only about 3% of the current annual
U.S. fossil fuel demand. The impact on food supply, however, would be catastrophic. Feeding the world’s population rather than fueling excessive automobile
use in the north must be the priority for agriculture.
3) Agrofuel demand is primarily in the rich countries of the north, while the
most productive agrofuel crops are grown in the tropical South. People in the
developing southern countries are losing their agricultural lands and forest resources due to the encroachment of industrial agrofuel production.
Soya production is responsible for more deforestation in the Amazon than logging
or cattle ranching, and demand for biodiesel is increasing the pressure to clear
more land for soya. As a result, pressure on Indigenous Peoples is mounting. In
Brazil’s Atlantic Forest state of Mato Grosso, the remaining 420 or so Enawe Nawe
Indians declare that “soya is killing us”, as their traditional forested lands have
been converted to soya plantations.
Also in Brazil, desperately poor migrant workers travel to towns like Palmares
Paulista where they work in miserable conditions virtually as slaves to the cane
plantation owners. Many have died from exhaustion in the camps.
In Argentina, Some 150 Ava Guarani families now live on just two hectares of floodprone lands, while the Tabacal mill uses one million hectares to produce sugar cane
on indigenous territories. Their resistance has been met with indifference.
In Ecuador, the Awa live in the last remaining large tract of coastal lowland rainforest, part of the Chaco area biodiversity “hotspot”. They have lived peaceably
with neighboring Afro-Ecuadorian peoples until recent pressures from logging and
palm oil plantation companies have claimed much of the indigenous lands.
Ecuador is the second largest producer of agrodiesel in Latin America, and intends
to increase production over 50% in the next 5 years.
In Colombia, paramilitary operations backed by U.S. have displaced AfroColumbian communities in the Narino Province to clear the way for large oil palm
plantations on their land.
In Paraguay, soya production is anticipated to increase from the current 2.4 million
to more than 4 million hectares due to the current agrofuel boom and rapidly rising
agrocultural commodity prices. This has caused mass exodus from rural communities as large scale soya monocultures, with their attendant agrochemicals take
over. People are moving to the edges of urban centers and over half the population
lives in poverty, often extreme. Here too, soya expansion is threatening Indigenous
Peoples, including uncontacted tribes of Ayoreo people in the Chaco region.
In Indonesia and Malaysia, conflicts between oil palm plantation developers and
Indigenous Peoples including the Dayak, Penan and Iban are common and violent,
often involving the military. According to one analysis from 2001, close to 500
people were tortured or killed, and many more injured, arrested and terrorized
while attempting to defend community land rights.
As in Brazil, workers on Asian palm oil plantations, often children, are virtual
slaves, working in miserable conditions for US$1.60-$1.80 per day, below minimum wage standards and have no access to health care, education or basic rights.
In India and many other countries, pastoral peoples are being threatened as their
lands are classified as “degraded” and subsequently destined for large-scale agrofuel plantations.
In general, the impacts of agrofuel monocultures are particularly negative for Indigenous Peoples and women, as they are more dependent upon access to biologically diverse ecosystems like forests and grasslands for their daily survival, while
also being marginalized and discriminated against in the paid labour and monetary
economy that these monocultures bring.
4) Growing biomass for energy requires huge amounts of tilling, fertilizer, pesticides and herbicides, which are bad for the environment, climate and people.
Tilling soil causes the release of carbon that is normally stored by soil microorganisms. This is more dramatic in (but not limited to) tropical soils, and increases with
the addition of fertilizers. The use of nitrogenous fertilizers in agriculture has
caused a doubling of available nitrates in the biosphere. This has had disastrous
consequences, causing large “dead zones” in marine ecosystems and the eutrophication of lakes and waterways. Excessive nitrogen from agricultural runoff is
considered one of the greatest threats to marine ecosystems worldwide. Nitrous
oxide is 310 times more effective as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide and
takes much longer than CO2 to break down in the atmosphere (around 120 years).
Crops used for agrofuels like corn and soya, are heavily treated with herbicides and
pesticides which are toxic to beneficial insects and can contaminate water. Use of
genetically engineered crops “designed” for repeated and extensive use of herbicides like Roundup (glyphosate), lead to huge increases in the use of these chemicals. Roundup also poisons agricultural workers, contaminates waterways, is
lethal to many amphibians, encourages resistant strains of weeds and destroys native and beneficial plants growing adjacent to sprayed areas. Use of “Roundup
Ready” crops for agrofuels will exacerbate these problems.
Paraquat, a highly toxic insecticide that has been banned in many countries, is used
on oil palm and soya. It is a persistent toxin, builds up in soils, and can be fatal if
inhaled, ingested or absorbed through the skin. Its effects are irreversible. Agricultural workers, often women, are exposed daily and many workers have died
from poisoning. Pesticide runoff enters and contaminates waterways.
5) Competition for increasingly precious water resources.
Fresh water resources have already been dangerously depleted in many parts of the
world, and climate change models predict that some areas will experience increasing droughts and desertification. Crops grown for agrofuels in areas without ample
rainfall draw down water reserves and leave less water available for other uses. It
is therefore extremely unwise to develop an energy policy dependent on ample
water supplies. Diverting huge amounts of remaining freshwater reserves into
agrofuel plantations would be disastrous.